A Two-Year Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of a Nanohybrid Composite Resin to a Flowable Composite Resin

Abstract

Objective: This prospective in vivo study aimed to compare the clinical behavior of a flowable composite resin (Genial Universal Flo, GC) and a nanohybrid universal composite resin (Tetric Evo Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent) used in Class I and II direct esthetic restorations in posterior teeth. Methods: A total of 108 Class I and II direct restorations were performed in patients aged between 20 and 60 years. The originality of this study lies in the fact that both materials were placed in pairs, in the same clinical environment (i.e., the same patient and the same type of tooth). The evaluations were performed now of restoration and after 2-weeks, 6-, 12-, and 24-months intervals using clinical examination, clinical photographs, and radiological examination, according to modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher exact test and chi-square analysis. Results: At baseline, the universal composite resin showed better esthetic properties such as surface luster, surface staining marginal staining. Both materials regressed significantly over time with no significant difference between groups. Conclusions: Both flowable and nanohybrid composite resins exhibit acceptable clinical performance. The present 24 months of evaluation of different composites showed that the G-ænial Universal Flo could be an effective esthetic material for posterior restoration. No significant difference between both materials over time concerning surface luster, surface staining, and marginal staining.

Chemical and Structural Assessment of New Dental Composites with Graphene Exposed to Staining Agents

“…Colour stability is a general problem for posterior teeth, but more significant for anterior teeth, which limits the use of composites [ 9 , 10 ]. The evaluation, adoption and implementation of new technologies are important in the identification of composite materials with improved physico-chemical and mechanical characteristics [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].…”

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials

“…A randomized controlled trial by Bhadra et al [28] in the year 2018 evaluated and compared the clinical performance of a nanohybrid composite with ACTIVA TM BioACTIVE restorative material in Class II cavities of permanent molars. e trial concluded that both materials showed equal and acceptable clinical performance at the end of 1 year [28].…”

Effect of different cavity liners on nanocomposite resin shear bond strength to dentine

“…It can produce mineralized tissue, preserve pulp vitality, and odontoblast layer integrity, and enhance mechanical properties. It is therefore recommended as a pulp capping agent [ 3 , 4 ]. Giomers combined the characteristics of composite resin with glass ionomer cement.…”